"Sola Scriptura" doesn't mean that the Bible is the only source of teaching and doctrine. It means that it is the only infallible source(I know you folks hate that word) and that all that is necessary for salvation can be found within it.

If that's so (and I'm sure you know there are Protestants who will disagree with you on that), then why do they have the fallible interpret the infallible? BTW, I hate the word folks.

In Christ,Andrew

First, I have to say that watching a bunch of Orthodox Christians discuss Protestant Theology is like listening to people from the Congo discuss snow. But that said, the Lutherans are probably the earliest proponents of "Sola Scriptura", and even they use some form of tradition to validate the interpretation of the Scriptures. If one studies the early Reformation writings, one will find that early Reformers such as Luther accepted the Theological concepts of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils, just not the Canons (or rather, not all of them). Most of Luther's issues with Roman doctrine was not what was believed by the unified Church, but the deviations from the early beliefs by the Latin Church in later years. He still held a health respect for the "Eastern" Church (what he knew of it) and believed that it more than any preserved the True Faith, certainly more than Rome. In Luther's eyes, men like Calvin and Zwingli were heretics that were in some cases worse than the Pope.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Just a question out of curiousity. Why do Protestant sects who adhere to Sola-Scriptura--that is, Bible Only, believe in the doctrine of the Trinity?

Hi James. The difficulty with questions like ^^ this is that protestants are not one group. (So it's kind of like asking "What do non-Americans think about democracy?") The fact that you limited your question to protestants who adhere to Sola-Scriptura helps a little, since it excludes e.g. Anglo-Catholics.

I didn't think he was talking about them as one group. It seems like he qualified it pretty well (using "Protestant sects who adhere to Sola Scriptura").

In Christ,Andrew

Yes. As I said, that helps a little, since it excludes e.g. Anglo-Catholics.

I thought James was directing his question to the Protestant sects that adhere to Sola Scriptura, not all of them.

In Christ,Andrew

Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

"Sola Scriptura" doesn't mean that the Bible is the only source of teaching and doctrine. It means that it is the only infallible source(I know you folks hate that word) and that all that is necessary for salvation can be found within it.

If that's so (and I'm sure you know there are Protestants who will disagree with you on that), then why do they have the fallible interpret the infallible? BTW, I hate the word folks.

In Christ,Andrew

First, I have to say that watching a bunch of Orthodox Christians discuss Protestant Theology is like listening to people from the Congo discuss snow. But that said, the Lutherans are probably the earliest proponents of "Sola Scriptura", and even they use some form of tradition to validate the interpretation of the Scriptures. If one studies the early Reformation writings, one will find that early Reformers such as Luther accepted the Theological concepts of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils, just not the Canons (or rather, not all of them). Most of Luther's issues with Roman doctrine was not what was believed by the unified Church, but the deviations from the early beliefs by the Latin Church in later years. He still held a health respect for the "Eastern" Church (what he knew of it) and believed that it more than any preserved the True Faith, certainly more than Rome. In Luther's eyes, men like Calvin and Zwingli were heretics that were in some cases worse than the Pope.

Yes, but why do they have the fallible interpret what they regard as the infallible? There are at least as many different ideas about Sola Scriptura as there are Protetestant sects. I saw several views in my Methodist days, despite Wesley not formally adopting Sola Scriptura.

In Christ,Andrew

Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

Just a question out of curiousity. Why do Protestant sects who adhere to Sola-Scriptura--that is, Bible Only, believe in the doctrine of the Trinity?

Hi James. The difficulty with questions like ^^ this is that protestants are not one group. (So it's kind of like asking "What do non-Americans think about democracy?") The fact that you limited your question to protestants who adhere to Sola-Scriptura helps a little, since it excludes e.g. Anglo-Catholics.

I didn't think he was talking about them as one group. It seems like he qualified it pretty well (using "Protestant sects who adhere to Sola Scriptura").

In Christ,Andrew

Yes. As I said, that helps a little, since it excludes e.g. Anglo-Catholics.

I thought James was directing his question to the Protestant sects that adhere to Sola Scriptura, not all of them.

In Christ,Andrew

I also thought that -- and I still think so. (And I granted that it "helps a little, since it excludes e.g. Anglo-Catholics.")

"Sola Scriptura" doesn't mean that the Bible is the only source of teaching and doctrine. It means that it is the only infallible source(I know you folks hate that word) and that all that is necessary for salvation can be found within it.

If that's so (and I'm sure you know there are Protestants who will disagree with you on that), then why do they have the fallible interpret the infallible? BTW, I hate the word folks.

In Christ,Andrew

First, I have to say that watching a bunch of Orthodox Christians discuss Protestant Theology is like listening to people from the Congo discuss snow. But that said, the Lutherans are probably the earliest proponents of "Sola Scriptura", and even they use some form of tradition to validate the interpretation of the Scriptures. If one studies the early Reformation writings, one will find that early Reformers such as Luther accepted the Theological concepts of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils, just not the Canons (or rather, not all of them). Most of Luther's issues with Roman doctrine was not what was believed by the unified Church, but the deviations from the early beliefs by the Latin Church in later years. He still held a health respect for the "Eastern" Church (what he knew of it) and believed that it more than any preserved the True Faith, certainly more than Rome. In Luther's eyes, men like Calvin and Zwingli were heretics that were in some cases worse than the Pope.

Yes, but why do they have the fallible interpret what they regard as the infallible? There are at least as many different ideas about Sola Scriptura as there are Protetestant sects. I saw several views in my Methodist days, despite Wesley not formally adopting Sola Scriptura.

In Christ,Andrew

All religion is the fallible attempting to interpret the infallible. The fact that one group (the Orthodox), over a long period of time, has been a bit better at it is really the work of the Holy Spirit more than any skill at interpretation on any of our parts.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Protestant teach that the author of Scriptures is inspired by God when they wrote them. And Scriptures are all the word of God. Thus, the teachings insides are 100% correct and no mistake.

However, the translator of bible would always make mistake.Just like in 1 Cor 3:15(e.g.but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. ), the translator of NIV just add a word 'escape' to fit with Protestant's teaching of salvation(e.g.but yet will be saved—even though only as one 'escaping' through the flames.). By fire/ through fire/ passing the fire does not mean escaping through the fire. When a substance pass the fire, it may become brighter, stronger and more valuable, or it may be destroyed by that fire. The meaningof 1 Cor 3:15 in NIV have been totally changed by Protestant translatosr.

Also, the meanings of bible verse are all determined by how we interpret them. That's why no matter the teachings of Calvinism , Arminianism, Universalism,Lutheran, Charismatic,Wesylan,Jehovah's Witnesses,Seventh-day Adventist, Prosperity Gospel, etc, they are all supported by bible verse. Since the meaning of the bible verse depends on how we interpret , everybody has good interpretation skill on bible can form a theology easily.

- We aimed to correct the errors of mediæval Catholicism, not to jettison Christian truth.

Not all Protestant Churches and pastors agree with this. Some Protestant pastors and church teach that the Church started to fall after Roman Empire stoped persecuting the Christians. They teach that after Roman Empire stoped persecuting the Christians, the Christians could live with peace. So, they started to make the idols , worshipped them ,played the power struggle ,alienated the church from the truth,etc. The church entered the dark age for more than 1000 years until 16 th century.

Some Protestant Churches and pastors even teach that Church started to fall after Apostle John died.

I myself have a hard time seeing scripture as infallible, I just don't understand how one could call it "infallible" can someone help me with this?

People say there is a difference between infallible and inerrant. They say that infallible means it won't fail in its purpose, it won't lead anyone astray; whereas inerrant means every detail in it is historically and factually correct. I find no problem with believing that the Bible is infallible, that it won't fail in its purpose, it won't lead anyone astray.

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

I myself have a hard time seeing scripture as infallible, I just don't understand how one could call it "infallible" can someone help me with this?

People say there is a difference between infallible and inerrant. They say that infallible means it won't fail in its purpose, it won't lead anyone astray; whereas inerrant means every detail in it is historically and factually correct. I find no problem with believing that the Bible is infallible, that it won't fail in its purpose, it won't lead anyone astray.

Just a question out of curiousity. Why do Protestant sects who adhere to Sola-Scriptura--that is, Bible Only, believe in the doctrine of the Trinity? The Trinity was developed by the Church and is never explicitely explained in the Bible. Sure, it may have been briefly implied in certain instances, but there are not any smoking-gun proof passages in the Bible that support the Trinity as far as I know. Most of the purely Biblical arguments in support of the Trinity seem rather unconvincing and built more on speculation than the actual Bible to be honest. I don't see how you can believe these arguments and believe in the Trinity UNLESS you accepted the authority of the Church and extra-biblical sources--something that most Protestant sects refuse to do.

In a sense, it seems like as time goes on, more and more Protestants are actually trying to return back to the Sacraments, fasts and "traditional Christianity"--yet, they are doing it by trying to isolate the Church from it and desperately trying to form these strange, enourmously implicit arguments to prove that their practice is "rooted in the Bible" by twisting, isolating and using even the most basic, obscure, shortest passage there is in the Bible in ways that you would never think to use that scripture before, in order to support some odd theological practice that is more rooted in speculation and a desire for order than actually in the Bible. Such as the "Daniel Fast"--which is a half-butted attempt at having their own form of the Church's official Lent, to all these weird "spiritual retreat Jesus camp" thingys that seem to be a knockoff of the Church's monastic practices, to belief in the doctrine of the Trinity--which is purely rooted in the Church.

How long till they throw in the towel and just return back to proper Christianity instead of all these desperate attempts to recreate it?

Because Sola Scriptura does not mean everything needs a direct and immediate proof text. The Trinity is nto explicitly in the Scripture per se, but it is a reasonable induction accounting for everything that is in Scripture about it.

I myself have a hard time reading scriptures anymore it seems that every time a do I find some mistake or contradiction so I kinda just leave them alone, but from what I have read the trinity seems NEARLY obvious.

Did you know that the original Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible didn't use punctuation? Translators and editors of all modern versions have added that. The punctuation can directly change the meaning of a sentence.

An English professor wrote the words: "A woman without her man is nothing" on the chalkboard and asked her students to punctuate it correctly.

All the males in the class wrote: "A woman, without her man, is nothing."

All the females in the class wrote: "A woman: without her, man is nothing!"

A very interest thing which show sola scriptural is nonsense. Just Punctuation can cause the problem of interpretation.

Did you know that the original Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible didn't use punctuation? Translators and editors of all modern versions have added that. The punctuation can directly change the meaning of a sentence.

An English professor wrote the words: "A woman without her man is nothing" on the chalkboard and asked her students to punctuate it correctly.

All the males in the class wrote: "A woman, without her man, is nothing."

All the females in the class wrote: "A woman: without her, man is nothing!"

A very interest thing which show sola scriptural is nonsense. Just Punctuation can cause the problem of interpretation.

Except English relies on syntax to express meaning. Other languages rely on it less so, or almost not at all (Latin).

Did you know that the original Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible didn't use punctuation? Translators and editors of all modern versions have added that. The punctuation can directly change the meaning of a sentence.

An English professor wrote the words: "A woman without her man is nothing" on the chalkboard and asked her students to punctuate it correctly.

All the males in the class wrote: "A woman, without her man, is nothing."

All the females in the class wrote: "A woman: without her, man is nothing!"

A very interest thing which show sola scriptural is nonsense. Just Punctuation can cause the problem of interpretation.

Except English relies on syntax to express meaning. Other languages rely on it less so, or almost not at all (Latin).

Punctuation can help us to organise a sentence and express the meaning of a sentence. Greek,Hebrew, Latin do not have the punctuation.That means people can organise the Greek,Hebrew and Latin sentence and express their meaning freely as well as according to the way ,the will they like and the perception they have ?

Did you know that the original Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible didn't use punctuation? Translators and editors of all modern versions have added that. The punctuation can directly change the meaning of a sentence.

An English professor wrote the words: "A woman without her man is nothing" on the chalkboard and asked her students to punctuate it correctly.

All the males in the class wrote: "A woman, without her man, is nothing."

All the females in the class wrote: "A woman: without her, man is nothing!"

A very interest thing which show sola scriptural is nonsense. Just Punctuation can cause the problem of interpretation.

Except English relies on syntax to express meaning. Other languages rely on it less so, or almost not at all (Latin).

Punctuation can help us to organise a sentence and express the meaning of a sentence. Greek,Hebrew, Latin do not have the punctuation.That means people can organise the Greek,Hebrew and Latin sentence and express their meaning freely as well as according to the way ,the will they like and the perception they have ?

No, the case structure of the words determine their meaning leaving the invention of punctuation unimportant.

Well the Bible does mildly hint at the fact of the trinity , but it doesn't explicitly say it. It is another reason why we also should read the Church fathers to get their understanding.

Remember that in the Gospel of John it is mentioned that not everything Jesus said or did is mentioned in the Bible, we have to also get another source for our knowledge, hence the importance of the early Church Fathers.

Well the Bible does mildly hint at the fact of the trinity , but it doesn't explicitly say it. It is another reason why we also should read the Church fathers to get their understanding.

Remember that in the Gospel of John it is mentioned that not everything Jesus said or did is mentioned in the Bible, we have to also get another source for our knowledge, hence the importance of the early Church Fathers.

Remember that in the Gospel of John it is mentioned that not everything Jesus said or did is mentioned in the Bible, we have to also get another source for our knowledge, hence the importance of the early Church Fathers

^This

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Just a question out of curiousity. Why do Protestant sects who adhere to Sola-Scriptura--that is, Bible Only, believe in the doctrine of the Trinity? The Trinity was developed by the Church and is never explicitely explained in the Bible. Sure, it may have been briefly implied in certain instances, but there are not any smoking-gun proof passages in the Bible that support the Trinity as far as I know. Most of the purely Biblical arguments in support of the Trinity seem rather unconvincing and built more on speculation than the actual Bible to be honest. I don't see how you can believe these arguments and believe in the Trinity UNLESS you accepted the authority of the Church and extra-biblical sources--something that most Protestant sects refuse to do.

In a sense, it seems like as time goes on, more and more Protestants are actually trying to return back to the Sacraments, fasts and "traditional Christianity"--yet, they are doing it by trying to isolate the Church from it and desperately trying to form these strange, enourmously implicit arguments to prove that their practice is "rooted in the Bible" by twisting, isolating and using even the most basic, obscure, shortest passage there is in the Bible in ways that you would never think to use that scripture before, in order to support some odd theological practice that is more rooted in speculation and a desire for order than actually in the Bible. Such as the "Daniel Fast"--which is a half-butted attempt at having their own form of the Church's official Lent, to all these weird "spiritual retreat Jesus camp" thingys that seem to be a knockoff of the Church's monastic practices, to belief in the doctrine of the Trinity--which is purely rooted in the Church.

How long till they throw in the towel and just return back to proper Christianity instead of all these desperate attempts to recreate it?

I believe in the Trinity because it is taught in the scriptures and not because the Niceans formulated it. In fact, my view of the Trinity is more in line with the pre-Niceans.

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” Matthew 28:19 (NKJV)

“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.” 2 Corinthians 13:14 (NKJV)

“For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.” 1 John 5:7 (NKJV) “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” John 1:14 (NKJV)

“ When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. 17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Matthew 3:16-17 (NKJV)

…how can any Solo-Scriptura Christian not believe in the Trinity?

Now, if they want to deny the use of the word ‘trinity’ so be it, but the concept/definition of God being; one God manifesting as three separate personhoods, if you will, is undeniable imho.

Logged

There are heathens that live with more virtue than I. The devil himself believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Neither of these things truly makes me Christian.

Now, if they want to deny the use of the word ‘trinity’ so be it, but the concept/definition of God being; one God manifesting as three separate personhoods, if you will, is undeniable imho.

Correction: One God existing as three distinct Persons. To say He manifests Himself as three Persons could be seen as modalistic, since "manifest" has more to do with how one makes himself visible rather than what one is in his very essence.

Now, if they want to deny the use of the word ‘trinity’ so be it, but the concept/definition of God being; one God manifesting as three separate personhoods, if you will, is undeniable imho.

Correction: One God existing as three distinct Persons. To say He manifests Himself as three Persons could be seen as modalistic, since "manifest" has more to do with how one makes himself visible rather than what one is in his very essence.

Yes, though it is not widely accepted in all translations I do accept it.

Is that what you mean? Why do you ask?

Medieval Latin scribes were inspired?

I knew it was a controversial passage but have been ignorant as to why. I accept the Trinity for reasons well beyond 1 John 5:7 so I guess I just wasn’t very concerned. It is good to know these things though and TY for your insight. I have much to learn!

Logged

There are heathens that live with more virtue than I. The devil himself believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Neither of these things truly makes me Christian.

I should point out that Sola Scriptura means only that doctrine must be proven from scripture, not that it must appear word-for-word in it. Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, and so forth haven't seemed to have had much problem with the proof part in this case.

Just a question out of curiousity. Why do Protestant sects who adhere to Sola-Scriptura--that is, Bible Only, believe in the doctrine of the Trinity? The Trinity was developed by the Church and is never explicitely explained in the Bible. Sure, it may have been briefly implied in certain instances, but there are not any smoking-gun proof passages in the Bible that support the Trinity as far as I know. Most of the purely Biblical arguments in support of the Trinity seem rather unconvincing and built more on speculation than the actual Bible to be honest. I don't see how you can believe these arguments and believe in the Trinity UNLESS you accepted the authority of the Church and extra-biblical sources--something that most Protestant sects refuse to do.

In a sense, it seems like as time goes on, more and more Protestants are actually trying to return back to the Sacraments, fasts and "traditional Christianity"--yet, they are doing it by trying to isolate the Church from it and desperately trying to form these strange, enourmously implicit arguments to prove that their practice is "rooted in the Bible" by twisting, isolating and using even the most basic, obscure, shortest passage there is in the Bible in ways that you would never think to use that scripture before, in order to support some odd theological practice that is more rooted in speculation and a desire for order than actually in the Bible. Such as the "Daniel Fast"--which is a half-butted attempt at having their own form of the Church's official Lent, to all these weird "spiritual retreat Jesus camp" thingys that seem to be a knockoff of the Church's monastic practices, to belief in the doctrine of the Trinity--which is purely rooted in the Church.

How long till they throw in the towel and just return back to proper Christianity instead of all these desperate attempts to recreate it?

James,

Didn't read the entire thread.

The church coined the term "trinity", but the trinity is scriptural.

Book of John"In the beginning was the word, the word was with God, the word is God". "The word became flesh".

Later, as Jesus was preaching to the Jews"Before Abraham was born, I AM".

That's the Comma Johanneum, [Allegedly] inserted by Latin Scribes during the Middle Ages.

It would have to have been. Only late Latin Vulgate manuscripts and one very late Greek manuscript contain it.

In the 1700s, John Gill wrote that he knew of nine "ancient copies" which contained the verse. Perhaps he was mistaken, or they have been lost. From his commentary on the Bible:

Quote

And as to its being wanting in some Greek manuscripts, as the Alexandrian, and others, it need only be said, that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens's, nine of them had it.

Just a question out of curiousity. Why do Protestant sects who adhere to Sola-Scriptura--that is, Bible Only, believe in the doctrine of the Trinity? The Trinity was developed by the Church and is never explicitely explained in the Bible. Sure, it may have been briefly implied in certain instances, but there are not any smoking-gun proof passages in the Bible that support the Trinity as far as I know. Most of the purely Biblical arguments in support of the Trinity seem rather unconvincing and built more on speculation than the actual Bible to be honest. I don't see how you can believe these arguments and believe in the Trinity UNLESS you accepted the authority of the Church and extra-biblical sources--something that most Protestant sects refuse to do.

In a sense, it seems like as time goes on, more and more Protestants are actually trying to return back to the Sacraments, fasts and "traditional Christianity"--yet, they are doing it by trying to isolate the Church from it and desperately trying to form these strange, enourmously implicit arguments to prove that their practice is "rooted in the Bible" by twisting, isolating and using even the most basic, obscure, shortest passage there is in the Bible in ways that you would never think to use that scripture before, in order to support some odd theological practice that is more rooted in speculation and a desire for order than actually in the Bible. Such as the "Daniel Fast"--which is a half-butted attempt at having their own form of the Church's official Lent, to all these weird "spiritual retreat Jesus camp" thingys that seem to be a knockoff of the Church's monastic practices, to belief in the doctrine of the Trinity--which is purely rooted in the Church.

How long till they throw in the towel and just return back to proper Christianity instead of all these desperate attempts to recreate it?

James,

Didn't read the entire thread.

The church coined the term "trinity", but the trinity is scriptural.

Book of John"In the beginning was the word, the word was with God, the word is God". "The word became flesh".

Later, as Jesus was preaching to the Jews"Before Abraham was born, I AM".

That's not the Trinity. That is the Duality and not the closed case argument folks like to think it is anyhow.

Just a question out of curiousity. Why do Protestant sects who adhere to Sola-Scriptura--that is, Bible Only, believe in the doctrine of the Trinity? The Trinity was developed by the Church and is never explicitely explained in the Bible. Sure, it may have been briefly implied in certain instances, but there are not any smoking-gun proof passages in the Bible that support the Trinity as far as I know. Most of the purely Biblical arguments in support of the Trinity seem rather unconvincing and built more on speculation than the actual Bible to be honest. I don't see how you can believe these arguments and believe in the Trinity UNLESS you accepted the authority of the Church and extra-biblical sources--something that most Protestant sects refuse to do.

In a sense, it seems like as time goes on, more and more Protestants are actually trying to return back to the Sacraments, fasts and "traditional Christianity"--yet, they are doing it by trying to isolate the Church from it and desperately trying to form these strange, enourmously implicit arguments to prove that their practice is "rooted in the Bible" by twisting, isolating and using even the most basic, obscure, shortest passage there is in the Bible in ways that you would never think to use that scripture before, in order to support some odd theological practice that is more rooted in speculation and a desire for order than actually in the Bible. Such as the "Daniel Fast"--which is a half-butted attempt at having their own form of the Church's official Lent, to all these weird "spiritual retreat Jesus camp" thingys that seem to be a knockoff of the Church's monastic practices, to belief in the doctrine of the Trinity--which is purely rooted in the Church.

How long till they throw in the towel and just return back to proper Christianity instead of all these desperate attempts to recreate it?

It is simply because Protestants are inconsistent and blindly believe in the Trinity (except for JWs and Oneness Pentecostals) which they received from the Catholic Church, and refuse to face the fact that the Trinity is not defined in Scripture, only mentioned. And if that doesn't suffice, they ramble off the Fathers only when they agree with them.

« Last Edit: November 20, 2013, 09:02:09 PM by Laird »

Logged

"Do not deceive yourself with idle hopes that in the world to come you will find life if you have not tried to find it in this present world." - Theophanis the Monk

That's the Comma Johanneum, [Allegedly] inserted by Latin Scribes during the Middle Ages.

It would have to have been. Only late Latin Vulgate manuscripts and one very late Greek manuscript contain it.

In the 1700s, John Gill wrote that he knew of nine "ancient copies" which contained the verse. Perhaps he was mistaken, or they have been lost. From his commentary on the Bible:

Quote

And as to its being wanting in some Greek manuscripts, as the Alexandrian, and others, it need only be said, that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens's, nine of them had it.

If that's true, that's unfortunate. But it's worthy to note it's not in the Greek Fathers either. Only in the Latin Fathers, like St. Cyprian.

Logged

I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.